Re: Contextualization ---> Optional bundle in Specialization

Hi James,

As far as your suggestion is concerned, this is mostly how Tim mapped 
Contextualization to prov-o.
Some trade-offs are necessary. We can discuss them.

However, I don't think it solves Graham's problem!

Luc


On 06/28/2012 04:35 AM, James Cheney wrote:
> If all that we need is a way to be able to say "e2 is a specialization 
> of e1 which is described in bundle b", then would the following suffice:
>
> 1.  Leave out ctxOf (or the 3-ary form of specializationOf)
> 2.  Add a special attribute "prov:inBundle" that any entity (or indeed 
> anything else) can have, linking each entity id to a bundle it appears 
> in (there may be more than one).
> 3.  Then instead of ctxOf(e2,e1,b) we just say 
> specializationOf(e2,e1).  The fact that e1 happens to be in bundle b 
> gets transferred by e2, along with all other attributes.  (Which seems 
> weird to me, since e2 isn't explicitly mentioned in b, but if being in 
> a bundle is just an ordinary attribute, then it should be transferred 
> by specialization just like every other attribute).
>
> I don't see how this addresses the original motivation for ctxOf, but 
> don't see that it does any harm - the complications arise if we start 
> trying to assign different meaning to "entity e" and "entity e in 
> bundle b".
>
> Just putting this out there - I am not pretending to understand that I 
> understand what ctxOf means at this point, and so the probability that 
> I'm barking up the wrong tree is high.  But maybe finding out why this 
> is wrong will be educational.
>
> --James
>

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2012 08:13:18 UTC